Back to SoWal Lounge

A sad day for America

Beach Fanatic
2,108 views
FOXNews.com - House Votes to Pass Senate Health Care Bill

Our children will note that 7 votes doomed them to even more financial servitude to the national government.

Stupid er Stupak can find solace in saving a few lives from abortion so they can be slaves to the growing godzilla of debt that this bill feeds.

I pray I am wrong but fear I am right on.:(

Replies

54
Arkiehawg avatar
Beach Fanatic
#27
They also said they weren't factoring in the Doctor fix which will blow it out of the water. Dems on the hill have already acknowledged this. Keep believing the lies...

You know what the doctor fix is right?


So AndrewG:

Do provide us with your solutions to the following:

1. No insurance availability to those with pre-existing illness
2. The continued escalation of insurance rates on those with fixed-income to the point where they must choose food/shelter or insurance.
3. Those who have lost their jobs, but can still get COBRA at Three times what they were paying when they HAD a job.
Beach Lover
#28
It's no surprise that most of the Dr. fix noise and misinformation has been coming from Faux News. Keep believing the lies.
Will B avatar
Moderator
#29
Take out all the back room deals, the cornhusker kickback, Louisanna purchase, earmarks, and other promises that were made. Would we be talking about this, today?


No.


That is the saddest part. Based on the bill and the bill alone neither the House nor Senate could get the votes to pass this...not even close.
Arkiehawg avatar
Beach Fanatic
#30
Take out all the back room deals, the cornhusker kickback, Louisanna purchase, earmarks, and other promises that were made. Would we be talking about this, today?


No.


That is the saddest part. Based on the bill and the bill alone neither the House nor Senate could get the votes to pass this...not even close.

And these processes would be any different with a Repub led House and Senate?

NO
Will B avatar
Moderator
#31
And these processes would be any different with a Repub led House and Senate?

NO

Please find in my message...anywhere...go ahead and look...I'll wait...

When you can find where I said that it would I will be glad to engage you in a toughtful two sided discussion.

Personally, I'm fed up with both sides of the fence. I would love somebody to have to balls to introduce legislation that makes all the backdoor shennanigans illegal and punishable by law. Why shouldn't it be? It is anywhere else other Capital hill.

But am I wrong? I don't think so...not by a long shot. And if the repubs were doing it, it most certainly wouldn't be any different. History backs that up. I'm just saying without all the dealing the bill would have died quickly regardless of who was driving...
Kayak Fish avatar
Beach Lover
#32
Evey bill that gets passed has hidden deals and kickbacks, but americans just happen to be paying attention to this one.
Will B avatar
Moderator
#33
I totally agree and think it's crap. The cost of most bills could probably be halved without all the baggage.

Edited

Arkiehawg avatar
Beach Fanatic
#34
My point is this.....both sides ARE doing it and have for more years than we have been alive.

The ONLY way that it will change is for Americans to vote all that do this out of office.

Will that happen...... NO

We are a country of *****ers and moaners and do very little to actually clean up the issue.

Once in a Blue Moon a Congress person is booted because they get too greedy and visual, but that's it.

I would stake a claim that I won't see this change in my lifetime. (unfortunately)
Alicia Leonard avatar
SoWal Insider
#35
I don't know if I agree with booting them all. I do believe unless we change the way they can do business, then the new ones will fall into the same traps.
Gidget avatar
Beach Fanatic
#36
I just had a friend in from Belgium and he and I discussed their country's health care at length - and it is as it should be - coverage for all. And he said that their country just doesn't get it when some Americans are against providing this basic right for all.

He also made the point that Bush spent SO MUCH on the war - where were the complainers about debt and $$ then?

Ok that's my political 2 cents for the past few weeks all rolled into one.

G
Beach FanaticAuthor
#37
Too many people on both sides of the fence view our national issues as a gottcha opportunity or a chance to score partisan political points. I for one fully agree that Republicans are just as guilty of backroom deals and shady legislation as Democrats. Both should be ashamed and all of us should call them out regardless of the party.
I also agree that we should get out of Iraq. I also think we should get out of Germany, England, France, Japan and a dozen other places. The war was a terrible waste of national treasure.
As far as health care I think large majorities support banning exclusion of pre-existing conditions and portability at the same cost. I also think most people support tort reform which was not included. We should have passed a bill with these features and continued to work on solutions to the other problems.
Bottom line is that I do not believe this bill will be all that helpful to anyone but will cost a fortune we do not have. I hope I am proved wrong.
AndrewG avatar
Beach Fanatic
#38
Does anyone honestly believe Obamacare is going to reduce the deficit? Honestly, all politics aside.

Did you see the article that came out today by Jack Welch forger CEO of GE? Here is the video on CNBC. He gets into his prognostications of Obamacare costs 8:30 minutes into it.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/business-15749628/welch-on-health-care-reform-18766418

If CNBC is right wing I don't know but it's the source I quickly found.
Beach Lover
#39
Does anyone honestly believe Obamacare is going to reduce the deficit? Honestly, all politics aside.

Did you see the article that came out today by Jack Welch forger CEO of GE? Here is the video on CNBC. He gets into his prognostications of Obamacare costs 8:30 minutes into it.

Welch on Health Care Reform

If CNBC is right wing I don't know but it's the source I quickly found.

Whether that is the case or not time will tell. Welch also says in the same segment that he things Dems will gain momentum with this victory and move forward with strong environmental legislation and other initiatives. Perhaps more importantly, he says that the GOP is in for an "awful shock" in November. Welch doesn't think Republicans will make the gains they are hoping for.
Go to 14:45 for the relevant part.
Jack Welch: Republicans In For 'Awful Shock' In November (VIDEO) | TPM LiveWire
AndrewG avatar
Beach Fanatic
#40
Yes I saw that too. That's his honest wise opinion. Someone as neutral and honest as Jack predicts Healthcare costs will be through the roof and that the CBO numbers are a tactical huge sham.

If the economy improves I think he's right come November. If healthcare costs do skyrocket it would confirm his belief the administration purposely lied to the American people. That's a huge problem in my book. I've seen quite a few posts from folks who truly believe Obamacare will reduce the deficit. It's like a modern the earth is flat debate.

If Jack Welch is right and the administration knows huge costs are coming then you have to understand his promise to not increase taxes for those earnng less than $250k was a lie too. They will be adding a VAT (value added tax) to supplement the increased costs. That's what European nations had to do. Their average VAT is currently 17%. That's an additional 17% tax that's front loaded on every single item they buy.

Beware if you start to hear talk of a VAT being a solution a year or two from now. I haven't heard it mentioned here in the US yet.
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#41
Who cares wealth redistribution is the goal regardless of the consequences.

Let's put the scary labels/connotations of socialism and wealth redistribution aside for a sec and have a serious talk...

I'm no economist but I thought that in a capitalist society that money is never really made, it is just moved around some. It is always redistributed- No?

The argument that I hear on a daily basis is that it isn't right that the government is initiating policies that are unfairly "redistributing" money away from the rich and toward the poor (you know- the lazy people who won't work for it).

The problem with this argument is that for the last three decades, the laws, policies, regulations (or lack thereof) were such that the money was redistributed upward- meaning, the richest of the rich were able to take advantage of laws that favored them so they could get even richer. The folks in the lower echelon didn't have the same advantages proportionately speaking.

My thought is- if you weren't against the wealth redistribution when it worked for you then why are you against it now when it works for someone else less fortunate?

Edited

Alicia Leonard avatar
SoWal Insider
#42
Let's put the scary labels/connotations of socialism and wealth redistribution aside for a sec and have a serious talk...

I'm no economist but I thought that in a capitalist society that money is never really made, it is just moved around some. It is always redistributed- No?

The argument that I hear on a daily basis is that it isn't right that the government is initiating policies to that are unfairly "redistributing" money away from the rich and toward the poor (you know- the lazy people who won't work for it).

The problem with this argument is that for the last three decades, the laws, policies, regulations (or lack thereof) were such that the money was redistributed upward- meaning, the richest of the rich were able to take advantage of laws that favored them so they could get even richer. The folks in the lower echelon didn't have the same advantages proportionately speaking.

My thought is- if you weren't against the wealth redistribution when it worked for you then why are you against it now when it works for someone else less fortunate?
:clap:
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#43
The problem with this argument is that for the last three decades, the laws, policies, regulations (or lack thereof) were such that the money was redistributed upward- meaning, the richest of the rich were able to take advantage of laws that favored them so they could get even richer. The folks in the lower echelon didn't have the same advantages proportionately speaking.

My thought is- if you weren't against the wealth redistribution when it worked for you then why are you against it now when it works for someone else less fortunate?

What on earth are you talking about? We provide lower income folks and their kids with free healthcare, free education, free food, welfare payments, free job placement and training, loan assistance and money to pay for private schooling, disability insurance, unemployment payments, retirement savings, retirement financial assistance and subsidised healthcare, and we even write these folks a respectable check in April to help them out, plus a whole myriad of other government services all designed to help those who don't make a lot of money, (yet) achieve something with their lives. How are these folks disadvantaged in your view? I just don't see it Geo.

As far as redistribution goes, relax, we already redistribute trillions to pay for all these services! The thing we want to avoid is a social model where if you punish people who succeed by redistributing all they make to those that don't, you remove the incentive to succeed. I just do not understand why liberals can't wrap their heads around that simple concept - it's so intuitive.

Edited

Here4Good avatar
Beach Fanatic
#44
What on earth are you talking about? We provide lower income folks and their kids with free healthcare, free education, free food, welfare payments, free job placement and training, loan assistance and money to pay for private schooling, disability insurance, unemployment payments, retirement savings, retirement financial assistance and subsidised healthcare, and we even write these folks a respectable check in April to help them out, plus a whole myriad of other government services all designed to help those who don't make a lot of money, (yet) achieve something with their lives. How are these folks disadvantaged in your view? I just don't see it Geo.
.

No, we don't. We pay for those things for the completely destitute, not for the working poor. If you have one tangible asset, if you make above minimum wage, if you aren't living in your car, you are not eligible for those things. Sure, you can scam the system, but I still believe that all welfare cheats suck less out of the the system than the two CEO's of failed banks that walked out with hundreds of millions of dollars of our money. You can scam any system.

Geo isn't talking about handouts to the destitute, he is talking about public policy that make upward mobility possible - that levels the playing field between the have-it-alls and the I'd-like-to-have-something-somedays.

Do you realize how many of the working poor (or even the working lower middle class) do not apply for Medicaid or food stamps or public housing because they don't want the stigma, and want to make it on their own, and they don't want to live in Section 8 housing?

Do you realize what kind of subsistence existence you are describing, having to check in the with the government for everything you need, so that you can live in a crappy place (yeah, they are crappy, don't tell me they're not) and get your $400 worth of grocery chits and stand in line every day for some other nitwit to ask you 40 questions you've already answered? Do you really think that's what Americans want, and what they aspire to?
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#45
The whole "liberals can't wrap their heads around a simple concept" and "what on earth am I talking about" rubs me a little wrong. Let's chat without being snarky, pls?

My post wasn't intended to make you think I was refering to (or forgetting about) social programs. It was about tax and economic policies and lack of regulation.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#46
No, we don't. We pay for those things for the completely destitute, not for the working poor. If you have one tangible asset, if you make above minimum wage, if you aren't living in your car, you are not eligible for those things. Sure, you can scam the system, but I still believe that all welfare cheats suck less out of the the system than the two CEO's of failed banks that walked out with hundreds of millions of dollars of our money. You can scam any system.

Define working poor and I will be more than happy to provide a list of free or subsidized services tax payers provide. Lets also try and avoid all the pointless populist comparisons to bank CEOs, ok? That has a tendancy to derail threads. :biggrin:

Geo isn't talking about handouts to the destitute, he is talking about public policy that make upward mobility possible - that levels the playing field between the have-it-alls and the I'd-like-to-have-something-somedays.

Who are these "have it alls" you speak of and how do they prevent the have nots from, oh, I don't know, attending school?

Do you realize how many of the working poor (or even the working lower middle class) do not apply for Medicaid or food stamps or public housing because they don't want the stigma, and want to make it on their own, and they don't want to live in Section 8 housing?

Amen to them! Proof we have not lost the idealism that makes this country great! :D

Do you realize what kind of subsistence existence you are describing, having to check in the with the government for everything you need, so that you can live in a crappy place (yeah, they are crappy, don't tell me they're not) and get your $400 worth of grocery chits and stand in line every day for some other nitwit to ask you 40 questions you've already answered? Do you really think that's what Americans want, and what they aspire to?

What are you asking for HereForGood? I don't understand what the problem is. What should we do instead, just mail big fat checks out and abolish all these tedious social systems?
Alicia Leonard avatar
SoWal Insider
#47
No, we don't. We pay for those things for the completely destitute, not for the working poor. If you have one tangible asset, if you make above minimum wage, if you aren't living in your car, you are not eligible for those things. Sure, you can scam the system, but I still believe that all welfare cheats suck less out of the the system than the two CEO's of failed banks that walked out with hundreds of millions of dollars of our money. You can scam any system.

Geo isn't talking about handouts to the destitute, he is talking about public policy that make upward mobility possible - that levels the playing field between the have-it-alls and the I'd-like-to-have-something-somedays.

Do you realize how many of the working poor (or even the working lower middle class) do not apply for Medicaid or food stamps or public housing because they don't want the stigma, and want to make it on their own, and they don't want to live in Section 8 housing?

Do you realize what kind of subsistence existence you are describing, having to check in the with the government for everything you need, so that you can live in a crappy place (yeah, they are crappy, don't tell me they're not) and get your $400 worth of grocery chits and stand in line every day for some other nitwit to ask you 40 questions you've already answered? Do you really think that's what Americans want, and what they aspire to?


Thank you. There is a a section of America that works every day and makes too much for any help what-so-ever, but make too little to be able to afford health care because it is priced out of their reach. This bill actually helps the working class, not those that are already covered by having a poverty level income. The rich get tax breaks, I'm thankful that someone cared enough to try and help me get affordable insurance. I know according to many I don't count, my life is not worth fighting for or saving if I get sick or get hit by a car, but for every one of them, there is one of me out there that felt like yesterday, at least the fact that I was born a woman can no longer be held against me when trying to purchase health care.
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#48
The whole "liberals can't wrap their heads around a simple concept" and "what on earth am I talking about" rubs me a little wrong. Let's chat without being snarky, pls?

My post wasn't intended to make you think I was refering to (or forgetting about) social programs. It was about tax and economic policies and lack of regulation.

It's more out of frustration. I do not understand why people are so frustrated with our current social model. It works, well.
Geo avatar
Beach Fanatic
#49
One more thing I meant to include (I can't edit posts from my iPhone),,,

I don't believe that if you punish the rich that they have less incentive to succeed. Generally, the rich are highly motivated to find a way around it (cut costs, drive revenue, find a loophole, etc).

But I do believe that if the poor believe they can't succeed that they can lose incentive to try...
30ashopper avatar
SoWal Insider
#50
Thank you. There is a a section of America that works every day and makes too much for any help what-so-ever, but make too little to be able to afford health care because it is priced out of their reach. This bill actually helps the working class, not those that are already covered by having a poverty level income. The rich get tax breaks, I'm thankful that someone cared enough to try and help me get affordable insurance. I know according to many I don't count, my life is not worth fighting for or saving if I get sick or get hit by a car, but for every one of them, there is one of me out there that felt like yesterday, at least the fact that I was born a woman can no longer be held against me when trying to purchase health care.

In this situation aleonard, w/added subsidized healthcare, is there any other assistance you think you will need? If not, hey, we've solved the last of our problems and can move on. Lets parrrrty! :D

Edited

Alicia Leonard avatar
SoWal Insider
#51
In this situation aleonard, w/added subsidized healthcare, is there any other assistance you think you will need? If not, hey, we've solved the last of our problems and can move on. Lets parrrrty! :D

This was the only thing that I needed help with and could not find a way to do all on my own. In the recent past, after losing coverage after a divorce, I found I could afford the premium or the deductible, not both, and I already live a minimal type of lifestyle by most American standards. After being covered for almost 40 years( my entire life) this is the first time I understood the fear of not being insured. Not because I abuse my health(I don't) but what would happen to me if somebody ran over me while I'm driving down the street. The only way it could be better is if I could sign up today.

Checking your forum account

Please wait while we verify your forum account.

New posts